6 takeaways from the GOP debate

[realtonygoodwin]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64247.html

Interesting.

[realtonygoodwin]

Ron Paul is trying to be more serious

Unlike the last two debates, where Paul took aggressive bites out of his home state governor, the Texas congressman barely laid a glove on Perry tonight.

And he didn’t seem to be trying to, either.

Paul seemed to be reaching for a more somber tone, after the CNN debate where he was asked a hypothetical about a dying 30-year-old without health insurance that produced some audience cheers for the prospect of letting the imaginary man die. He declined to speculate about his possible vice presidential nominee and instead talked of breaking into the top tier of candidates.

On the one hand, that approach helps Paul as he tries to be taken seriously by the larger Republican electorate. On the other, what makes Paul memorable are his diatribes and unexpected musings—without them, he faded into the scenery a bit.

And they also said Santorum has eclipsed Bachmann.

[ctiger2]

And they also said Santorum has eclipsed Bachmann.

How could Ron lay a glove on Perry. They didn't involve him in the debate at all. Surprise!

[jason43]

They also said Santorum "won" in the exchange with Huntsman, personally I thought Huntsman owned his a$$. Maybe that was because I hate Mr. Frothy, but still. I was also happy to see that Huntsman and others were starting to openly debate the wars. Seems like the more splintering of the war position, the better Pauls case gets, he was the leader in the anti-war/occupation from the start. When 50% or better of the candidates are having reservations about the wars, it validates Pauls long standing position and makes it less 'kooky' to republican voters.

[realtonygoodwin]

Agreed.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Fox played one of Dr. Paul's "memorable diatribes" today, when he was pounding his fist on the podium and saying no to benefits for illegal aliens and birthright citizenship.

[HeyArchie]

They also said Santorum "won" in the exchange with Huntsman, personally I thought Huntsman owned his a$$. Maybe that was because I hate Mr. Frothy, but still. I was also happy to see that Huntsman and others were starting to openly debate the wars. Seems like the more splintering of the war position, the better Pauls case gets, he was the leader in the anti-war/occupation from the start. When 50% or better of the candidates are having reservations about the wars, it validates Pauls long standing position and makes it less 'kooky' to republican voters.
I was thinking about this. 3/9 of the candidates are against the wars. That's 33%. And I think that's probably about the percentage of GOP voters who feel that way (from the ones I've talked to). I think that number rises every day though.

[eduardo89]

heres another article http://www.callofliberty.com/fox-google-debate/

[Rocket_pilot]

It's easy to fade into the background when they hardly give you a chance to speak!